Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Jask Derindi

V'rel Vusoryn's page

Goblin Squad Member. 175 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

The Grey Guard continues to offer membership to those that share our values and are in search of a Company.

Goblin Squad Member

Change as of 7/10/2014:

Accepted alignments

FROM

LN,LG,NG*

TO

LN,NG*

Reason: Settlement membership alignment guidelines.

Goblin Squad Member

The Grey Guard recruitment center has updated it's joining process on our forums. Joining our team is now only a few clicks away. Make the decision. Make a difference. Go Guard!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Grey Guard is currently seeking adventurers of all types as well as Commoners and Experts to join our ranks. Managing a POI takes all types and an organization that prides itself on teamwork and respect.

Join today. Make a difference. Help extinguish Frozen Fingers bonfires! (We really do need the help with the bonfires!)

Goblin Squad Member

*shakes head*

Not another fire...One would wonder if their fingers are frozen just how are they lighting all these fires.

*heads off to help the fire watch douse the flames*

Goblin Squad Member

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Lost? No direction in life? Father wants you to apprentice under him as a cobbler? Mother wants you to marry the baker's nice kid? You just want to get away from it all?

Join the Grey Guard! See the River Kingdoms! Make a difference!

Service guarantees citizenship?

...you wanna live forever?

Goblin Squad Member

Lost? No direction in life? Father wants you to apprentice under him as a cobbler? Mother wants you to marry the baker's nice kid? You just want to get away from it all?

Join the Grey Guard! See the River Kingdoms! Make a difference!

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks all! Those looking for a military based company that has more to it than just the barking of orders should give the Grey Guard a look. We've been described as a little bit Knights of Solamnia and a little Rangers from Babylon 5. Give us a visit to find out more.

Goblin Squad Member

They have lumberjacks and they're ok!

If you are fond of the outdoor life you'll find no better company. Stop in and talk to Uthreth.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
The point (in my mind) is that those leaders, from Joshua Chamberlain to Caesar, weren't martinets barking out orders from a sense of self: they were all other-focused, learners, listeners, and most importantly, they stood out in their time and context as innovative problem-solvers.

I agree. Gen. Moore fits those descriptors as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Chamberlain is a good example. Having been an US Army NCO I've read a bit about Gen. Harold "Hal" Moore and based on what I have learned of the man I'd follow him to hell and back. Though I am biased and will say CSM Plumley, RIP, had much to do the success of air cav as well.

We were soldiers once...and young is certainly a good read for anyone wanting to know a little more about leadership, teamwork and self sacrifice.

My career did not allow me to have the honor of being in the 7th, but out of respect: "Garryowen!"

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Name: Grey Guard

POI: Watchtower

Alignment: Lawful Neutral

Accepted Alignments: LN, LG, NG*

Classes Accepted: Any that can meet alignment

Deities Worshipped: Aroden, Iomedae, Torag, Angradd, Kols (Collectively called The Five)

Grey Council: General of the Grey; High Commander North [NA]; High Commander West [EU]; High Commander East [AP]

NPC Faction Affiliation: Hellknights(LN)

Purpose: As Citizens of Phaeros our charge is maintaining a fighting force, keeping within the values of The Five, capable of protecting the interests and assets of Phaeros, The Seventh Veil and its allies.

Introduction: The single most important belief to a member of the Grey Guard is maintaining the laws and keeping order in the lands in which he or she is charged to protect. Each member is expected to follow The Vow, the Law of the Grey as well as their respective Guardian Code both in letter and in spirit. This will aid them in the defense of our interests and as ambassadors for The Seventh Veil and the Roseblood Accord.

Joining the Grey Guard:
If you have interest in joining please register at The Seventh Veil website linked here. Once registered please fill out an application for TSV and, subject to TSV approval, read over the Sub-Community and Grey Guard forums (The latter to learn more about the Grey Guard, the former to request entry).

Please also feel free to PM me here if you have any questions about the Grey Guard.

*As far as alignment considerations if you feel that Neutral Good means you never follow orders in your pursuit of Good, then maybe not. If you feel, in the context of joining the Grey Guard, that it means that with whatever orders are given you find a way to further Good in the completion of those orders, then most certainly.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:
The idea of having to sign a contract and pay was my disconnect. .
If "mutually beneficial" is no longer the goal...

I am not aware that this is the case nor do I attempt to speak as one who has any say either way. Just had a personal question that was graciously answered and one that helps form my opinion for when I express my opinion in other venues.

I personally don't see banditry as not being positive gameplay however logic keeps me from agreeing that taking from one in such a manner is mutually beneficial. C'est la vie. Note that doesn't mean I view UNC as a whole in any manner. I take each individual as they come.

Thanks as well for the reply.

Goblin Squad Member

"The Goodfellow" wrote:


NAP = Non-Aggression-Pact

We did not form a contract per se, as this is more of a "grand scale" agreement along the same lines as one would sign an alliance or declare a full out war. The UNC deal more with smaller, or lower level and more intimate affairs. The NAP was agreed to by the settlement of Aragon, as well as all of its members, including the UNC, with the idea of "Not crapping where we sleep." In the NC thread, there is some more details, but as far as the UNC is concerned for this NC membership, we won't actively pursue NC members as our targets for any of our activities. We won't raid them, we won't SAD them, we won't ambush them.

It is important to note, as I think it was stated in the NC thread, that if a 3rd party owns a caravan and is ambushed by the UNC, while it is being guarded by a NC member, that would not violate the NAP for that combat to occur as the guards are considered members of the 3rd party while they are employed by them.

To clarify:

PAX is hired to guard a TEO caravan. UNC ambushes that caravan. PAX guards and UNC fight, and go about their respective day's. No violation of the NAP has occurred.

If PAX is guarding a PAX caravan and UNC ambushes it, BAD UNC!!!! :-)

Thank you for the information. Speaking personally I think that NAP (as discussed above) and our "mutual benefit" clause have many points in common and was a concern I had during the UNC signing RA beginnings. The idea of having to sign a contract and pay was my disconnect.

Anyway, once again thanks for taking the time. It is appreciated.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
This topic is so hot, even the colors can start fires. Funny enough, it's the RBA that's more annoyed by them, even though they get the jedi colors. ;P

Maybe because everyone in the RA isn't a Jedi...Dun dun dunnnnnn!!!

Goblin Squad Member

This is mainly directed at The Goodfellow because he is a good fellow from what I've heard. :P

In effort to not further derail FMS's post...

You mentioned NC's NAP. I'm assuming UNC has agreed to this. I also assume NAP stands for Non-Aggression Pact. If those are true my ultimate question is did UNC require all the members of the NC to sign a contract with them to not SAD or otherwise be aggressive toward them?

Was wondering how that part was worked out. I don't frequent these forums much preferring to stay in my own little corner of the PFO world.

Goblin Squad Member

In effort to not further derail FMS's post I started this.

You mentioned NC's NAP. I'm assuming UNC has agreed to this. I also assume NAP stands for Non-Aggression Pact. If those are true my ultimate question is did UNC require all the members of the NC to sign a contract with them to not SAD or otherwise be aggressive toward them?

Was wondering how that part was worked out. I don't frequent these forums much preferring to stay in my own little corner of the PFO world.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
This could still be a nice thread about an awesome map somebody made.

There is no question that the map is awesome. I think the question is toward the context or pretense in which it was made. People have worked very hard to put the RA together in the light that it is advertised and to have others suggest and continue incorrectly characterize it as something else because they are more familiar with that something else has generated passionate responses and in turn questions of intent.

I personally don't think the RA as intended needs defending. It is what it is as listed on paper. Others in the RA differ in that opinion with me. C'est la vie.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
T7V Avari wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Guurzak wrote:
..."coalition"...
Our non-American participants informed us that word has unavoidably negative connotations with which we didn't want to deal.

Yeah we went over all of this. I actually liked Pact as the "softer word", but others thought it sounded like blood pact, especially combined with Roseblood. Truth is it does not matter what we call it or how much we explain it, when more than 50% of the players in settlements are signed to it, haterz gonna hate.

All we did was sign up for a way to play at the meta level and agree that we generally like each other and made friends on the playground. Haterz know that very darn well, but haterz gonna hate.

Calling others "haters" is always so convincing as a principle held by those who claim to be bastions of "positive game play".

Positive game play does not mean we can't call things as they are. A spade a spade if you will. It does mean that I am not going to argue with you back and forth over that point. We've put our definition of what we are trying to accomplish out there. If others choose to ignore it and make claims of something else and try to spin it as sinister, so be it.

Anyone truly wanting clarification knows to go to the source and ask as opposed to relying on what others assume.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dazyk wrote:


Man, woman, child, gnome, Reaver: we have a home for you!

*spits out his ale in a huge mist, his eyes grow to the size of bucklers*

Wait, what?

Dazyk wrote:


(Ok... maybe not Reavers... Sorry!)

*lets out a huge sigh*

Whew...

Goblin Squad Member

Darcnes wrote:
We will gladly provide transport for these tributes, at a discounted rate. ;)

We.We will gladly provide transport. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome Nolondil Leafrunner. I am most happy that the Elves have chosen this path.

Goblin Squad Member

Congratulations on the strong Land Rush showing Darcnes and members of Dagedai! I wish you genuine continued success.

Goblin Squad Member

I look forward to sharing Phaeros with the members of Koinonia Emporou!

Goblin Squad Member

Welcome to Phaeros AOU and company!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
But more significantly, most of our membership are also former or active military and this gives us a sense of cohesion.

Yep, that's one of the great points to pick up during service. Working as a cohesive unit in your endeavors. I also found the emphasis on military bearing to be a useful life lesson as well. Maintained it even into the civilian world. Find it useful in gaming as well. My experience anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Seriously speaking, what exactly would the mutually beneficial compensation be for our giving up our role and play style?

I would entertain this type of arrangement as part of a contract, but it's terms would have to be clearly defined and each entity would be dealt with independently ( one contract for each settlement; One contract for each company, etc).

As a rule, we do not apply the terms of a contract to any party that had not specifically entered into it. This means that third parties are not considered part of the terms.

This to me sounds like a person wishing to join the local Elk's lodge, but instead of paying dues (which I don't believe the Roseblood Accord requires monetary dues, so no modern definition sophism here please) they demand that the Elk's Lodge pay them a stipend to act cordially. Not so much even the Lodge as a whole, but more each individual member of the Lodge so that you don't shake one member's hand and slap the guy standing right next to him in the face.

All that have signed have agreed to not slap each other in the face and are not putting any ancillary paper to it. We certainly aren't requiring payment to not harass each other either. Attacking one member of the RA is for sure an attack on all members as it weakens the one and thus the whole.

I understand you want to be a bandit. I understand you want to play the whole contract for this and that angle. What I'm not alright with is the "As long as you give me money we're friends/cordial/affiliated/non-hostile, but if ever there is a point where you don't give me money then I punch you in the face." That seems to be the summation of relations with UNC (in my view) and is not very appealing (again, in my view). Especially in consideration of the definition of the word Accord. I see no harmony in that.

I'm not PvP adverse. I will punch back. That cleared up, as described above I can't see how that is mutually beneficial to me. I give you money (benefit to you), what are you giving to me? Again, not punching me just isn't a valid bargaining chip.

Now, for me, if as a member of the RA UNC initiated ZERO hostile/aggressive acts or extortion demands for the duration of their membership toward other RA members, their lands and interests...with the RA effectively the "contract", I know I personally would not be adverse to the idea of membership as a possibility. In that situation the next step as I see it would be to iron out in macro form who are viable targets. Everyone in the SE won't be part of the RA nor will they necessarily be friendly toward the RA.

As for what UNC gets in benefit...the benefits of being in connection with such a diverse group that have settlements is obvious to most.

Goblin Squad Member

Keep on dreaming

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks Lhan!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Name: Grey Guard

Alignment: Lawful Neutral

Accepted Alignments: LN, LG

Classes Accepted: Any that can meet a LN/LG alignment

Deities Worshipped: Aroden, Iomedae, Torag, Angradd, Kols

Grey Council: General of the Grey; High Commander North [NA]; High Commander West [EU]; High Commander East [AP]

NPC Faction Affiliation: Hellknights

Purpose: As Citizens of Phaeros our charge is maintaining a fighting force, keeping within the values of The Five, capable of protecting the interests and assets of The Seventh Veil and its allies.

Introduction: The single most important belief to a member of the Grey Guard is maintaining the laws and keeping order in the lands in which he or she is charged to protect. Each member is expected to follow The Vow, the Law of the Grey as well as their respective Guardian Code both in letter and in spirit. This will aid them in the defense of and as ambassadors for The Seventh Veil and the Roseblood Accord.

Joining the Grey Guard:
If you have interest in joining please register at The Seventh Veil Forums and then fill out an application in the Member Application section. Note at the top of your application that your intent is to join the Grey Guard. If you have questions about the Grey Guard please PM me here or on The Seventh Veil forums.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Job well done to all involved in this accord!

Goblin Squad Member

There was alot of discussion about Clerics healing and emphasis on them not standing in the back and instead up in the mix healing and bashing things. That's cool.

What I hope is that the GW team doesn't get blinders on cleric spells and focusing on only the healing aspects. I would hope to see many of the offensive cleric spells in the game as well as the "buffs" and "debuffs" and utilities. Bane, Entropic Shield, Obscuring Mists, Dispel Magic, Flame Strike, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Tried to post this months ago but the link got privatized. I think elements of this would be nifty to have in PFO.

Guild Tools video

Goblin Squad Member

I know I've thought this before but can't remember if I'd asked.

Are these miniatures being shipped to GW and then to us or directly from Reaper? Would it be possible to pick them up, when ready - not asking for ahead of that time) directly from Reaper. It would save you guys shipping in my case as I live 5 minutes from the building in which they are being made.

Oh, and do you guys plan to have any presence or do anything special for Reaper Con? I know Sean Reynold's came down a year or two ago.

Thanks in advance!

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:

Is PFO intended to be a role playing game, or a fantasy based first person shooter with an "economy"?

If the first is the case then yes, there should at some point be interiors and there should be some level of customization available for them.

If the latter is the case then outside of any mechanical advantages they give for cover, concealment, etc. interiors would be irrelevant.

Considering that they are going this extra mile to implement Reputation and Alignment and actually give them some meaning (what that meaning is can be debated elsewhere), then I'm pretty sure it's the former. That's not to say the latter won't be there, but the former is most certainly present when you also consider the players forming nations and settlements and the focus to make meaningful player interaction.

While everyone may not be running around speaking in butchered Olde English there will certainly be roleplay.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not. I've backed both and should both release I will play both.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

I've passed a few other Wisdom checks recently, so I figured I was due :)

I failed mine as well, but made up for it I believe as found a trail that led me to end my viewing with Limahl and the Neverending Story theme.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon,

Are you suggesting that there should be no way to gain reputation by playing in a positive manner?

I am suggesting it should not be easy to recover from evil acts. You might have seen me point this out before.

What ways, besides slow recovery over time, do you see as acceptable for those that engage in PvP to actively gain positive REP?

I see none. Making it so that a player can push a button to "right all his/her wrongs" takes any and all sting out of a Reputation system. Time heals wounds and I believe should be one of the factors in Positive Reputation gain.

The more time you spend not doing Negative Reputation actions, then you are able to earn Positive Reputation. Positive Reputation should then be doled out on a daily basis in small amounts such that you can't "sin on Monday and be fully forgiven on Tuesday (or Wed-Sun) of the same week.

As an out of the air example, if you lose 100 Reputation Points on a day it (to me) should take you a month to earn those points back (if you desire to). By earn I mean your character "staying clean" and not committing any Negative Reputation activities.

Again, if you make it so players can click a button and grind out even 1 point back to the positive then (to me) the Reputation system has zero teeth as players can and will find a way to game it.

And no, PvPing against allies/friends/alts is completely not within the spirit of the Positive Reputation idea especially with regard to earning it back. It's completely a "I wanna be bad and mean to folks Monday, but want to be able to walk back into town and buy groceries on Wednesday."

Charles Manson can't go work in a soup kitchen and have his Reputation restored to Neutral(0) in a day. The person who gets drunk and beats their spouse can't gain that good reputation back with said spouse in a day or two. It takes time. And focusing on my specific examples is evidence my of missing my basic point: It takes time. Time is a premium item and makes one consider doing an action or not.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
The element of WoW I enjoyed was the humor. Nothing else comes to mind.

One more element than I. I found the humor to be too "try-hard" and not funny at all. Only played WOW for about 6 weeks in early 2006 after I left Star Wars Galaxies in November 2005(NGE). After I left WoW I never once had even the smallest desire to go back.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Yeah, an example on the very far end of the bell curve where a Wizard has a higher Dex than a Rogue isn't very useful for talking about comparisons.

Which is even better as I personally don't believe Wizards and Rogue should be compared against each other. The options available to Wizards should come from folks who are experienced in playing them within the rules and have the vision to see more than just the two or three "usual suspect" builds that constantly talked about.

Faithfully implementing as near all of the core RB spells as possible will help with this. If it is a point of it not being able to be done due to coding issues I understand. If it's a matter of the given dev(s) working on it just can't see a use for it or a way for it to cause an effect then I would hope that dev has both the freedom and permission to reach out to the us as a resource.

Goblin Squad Member

Imbicatus wrote:
Rolled stats make any TT comparison worthless. If you were using point buy to make your characters per PFS rules, I think you would be behind in AC vs the Rogue.

Well, I don't agree with you in that it's worthless. That said if anything it only changes the numbers by a point or 2 and the wizard still has an AC of over 20. The wizard just may be on the trailing side then and only by, again, a point or two.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

In tabletop, Mage Armor and Bracers of Armor don't stack, and you're likely to be at least two points of AC from Dex behind the Rogue to start. By high level, you're several more points of Dex, a mithral chain shirt, and maybe a Dodge and Two Weapon Defense behind. In theory, you're not spending your expected total wealth on weapons, so you might be able to be a little ahead of the Rogue on rings of protection and amulets of natural armor.

The behavior I generally see at my table is that Wizards and Sorcerers quickly realize that it'll be prohibitively expensive to stay competitive in the AC economy anyway (and the melee characters get first dibs on +AC rings and amulets), so they'll slap on a several-hour Mage Armor or wear Bracers that dropped as treasure, and hand-me-down rings and amulets, because all of that is essentially free, but otherwise they opt out of AC. Instead, they rely on spells like Mirror Image and Stoneskin that don't care about hit rolls, and generally try to avoid ever being an attack target in the first place. Their gear tends to be in the form of utility and stat-boosting wondrous items and eventually staves. I regularly see Rogues hit the low 30s of AC in their teens, and I can't recall a Wizard or Sorcerer crossing 20 except on special occasions.

But other peoples' mage players may be different than mine :) .

All that said, we've tentatively got a Wizard spec that gets some all-the-time Physical resistance based around the idea of Mage Armor. It can't match a Rogue without making some important tradeoffs in other places, but it's not nothing.

And, as you note, there will probably be spells that can make a caster quite resilient for a little while.

Most certainly, and with keeping within the scope of the PFRB rules as well (no "house rules"). A character's AC score effectively begins when that player sits down and rolls the 6 stats. I am the Wizard in our Kingmaker campaign and I rolled an 18 and a 17 initially. I put the 18 in Intelligence and the 17 in Dexterity. Our Rogue's highest roll was 15. I'm ahead by +1 out of the gate.

He purchased Studded Leather with his initial funds, I picked up Mage Armor as I have always done since the spell was implemented in RPG gaming. I'm ahead AC wise by +2 now.

Now, our group pretty much does the same as yours in dividing up loot. We d20 roll and high roll chooses first, after all have picked we start in order again if anything is left. If a Ring of Protection is there and the Rogue chooses the Dagger +3 as his first choice (and he picks ahead of me) the all bets are of and I take the Ring.

It also doesn't take too many levels before as an Arcane Caster I can make Rings and Amulets for myself via Feats. The only part of Pathfinder I find lacking is its implementation of Metamagic Feats. I have never found an instance where slotting a lower level spell was preferable to slotting a spell of the appropriate level. So we both have Dodge and are Medium sized.

Substituting the bracers of armor for the Amulet of Natural Defense I created (and that the Rogue doesn't have currently) my AC is comparable to his. I will admit it does help for me that we did have a loot scenario like the one above in which he chose a very nice magic weapon (it had elemental dmg and enchantments that brought it's threat range down to 15 or 16) and in doing so passed up a Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4, which I took.

My AC sans Mage Armor is 17 and over 20 with it. Over his by a point or two and not by going too far out on limbs to do it. We don't run (don't believe in) Monty Haul and enforce settlement levels and the probability of there being enough coin in circulation to even buy found items we want to sell. We even have session where there is no loot generated, just roleplay. As conservative as our campaign is in those regards, I still at this time would have had the means to craft the Belt +4 on my own if I had desired.

And that's not even maxing out the respective item bonuses of the items I have. A Ring of Protection, Amulet of NA at 1 under max bonus with Mage Armor plus your inherent AC base (and Dodge) is over 20.

So yeah, again, not going BSC it is fairly easy and normal to build high AC mages. Especially if you aren't keen on the Metamagic Feats.

Goblin Squad Member

Imbicatus wrote:
I could see all kinds of potential abuse of arcane mark. As mush as I like the spell, having the ability to constantly write semi-permanent messages on other players would cause huge performance issues, not to mention the griefing.

It fades if cast on a living being (spell says a month, that can be adjusted to quicker periods for gameplay purposes). Additionally an Erase spell will remove it instantly.

I don't agree that enough has been presented to warrant not including it based on the the "someone might do something mean" with it. The same "bad language" filter that will no doubt be in for chat/character naming/etc., can be applied to this spell as well and refuse to let the caster type the offensive words or phrases.

Goblin Squad Member

I would love to see every single core rulebook Arcane (and Divine for that matter) spell in game. Even Comprehend Languages has a place even if we don't have the racial languages (and inability to understand them if you do not invest) as we saw in Original Everquest. It could still be used to translate written items found in the world place as content prods.

If a developer has trouble thinking of how any spell listed in the PFRB could be used in a MMO please ask for ideas here as opposed to discounting it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:


That was my understanding also. I was not sure where Keovar was thinking towards, if perhaps another eg of Arcane casters would be mentioned additional to dps-glass-cannnon-spellbook => dps spells.

Nihimon seems to indicate some egs "Divination and Abjuration." Any others that Arcane casters might use?

Sure. Conjuration, Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation, Necromancy, Universalist and the Elemental schools.

The spells from these schools should get equal attention as the ones from Evocation that are primarily direct damage causing. The Arcane option for not being a "glass cannon" should be and Arcane Swiss Army Knife.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Keovar wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
You are likely to be a glass cannon
Likely because you think that's what arcane casters want, or likely because that's what you're designing them to be? If the former, I will say that it does not apply to me, and as for the latter... well, I guess it's good to know that I needn't bother trying to play one.

Yeah, I'm hoping it's "likely" in the sense of "most Wizards will choose to be glass cannons" rather than in the sense of "if you want to be a powerful Wizard, you're going to have to be a glass cannon".

I remain hopeful that a Defensive Wizard will be viable. I'd actually like to give up the high-damage Evocation spells in favor of specializing in Divination and Abjuration.

And that's the thing, right. I'd like to know more about the person(s) designing wizards/Sorcerers. I want to know more about their PF TT experience.

The reason I want to know is that the majority of the people ages 25 and below that I've run into in FLGS these days have only played 4th edition DnD OR if they have played PF they have played it in a Hack-N-Slash manner only.

My hope is that the persons designing the the arcane casting classes fully understand the widespread utility of the majority of the Arcane Spells and how they could translate into an MMO with a little thought. What I hope isn't the case is that the mentality of said designers isn't the one of "RPG gaming is about the Direct Damage Combatz, yo!"

Indeed I hope that a mandatory campaign of King Maker is being ran and that all staff are required to take on one of the roles of governing. I know the Core Rulebook is the major influence however if you the team is ever to open up a second book the Ultimate Campaign book should be Number 2, followed by all the Beastiary books.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Beings which are capable of expressing their consent or lack thereof are treated differently than beings which are not. Near as I can tell, my dogs are very happy to live with me and let me give them food and shelter.

If they weren't happy they would express it and you would know it. Kind of hard to misinterpret a hard bite. Pretty much means they aren't happy about something/someone.

I'm quite sure dogs (at least the one I own and those my friends have) can perceive and feel based on my own personal experiences and from those of others I know. Course not every human can perceive those instances in their pets.

Anyone who thinks dogs aren't sentient needs to first read the definition of the word and then read this story.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

I completely agree. #1 Stealth alone should never allow one to sneak up on another when there is nothing of mass blocking vision between the two. Now, if the Rogue had the spells Invisibility and Silence cast on them as well as was either Ethereal or Incorporeal via some magic item or spell, then yes they should be able to break ranged distance unseen/unheard/undetected up to 5ft from their target.

A Rogue just having maxed stealth alone should not unless his target remains facing away from him/her the entire time and the Rogue wins the Stealth vs Perception roll each turn until they are at 5ft (5ft being normal melee attack range). #2 If ever there is a point in which a straight line can be drawn by the server from the stalked character's eyes to a point on the body of the Rogue Stealth should be dropped, Rogue detected.

#3 So even if a character sits and spins a savvy Rogue would still be able to make the 5ft mark using cover (buildings, large boxes/crates, trees, boulders, hills, statues, etc) to block line of sight as they approach.

#1 - Complete agreeance.

#2 - I could see pinging the Rogue to re-confirm stealth so long as the Rogue has partial concealment... as long as the target character isn't spinning. If caught in the wide open, then yes, drop stealth.

#3 - I would hope spinning in a circle at even a moderate rate of speed nullifies that characters awareness attributes. Your character isn't paying attention to its surroundings, it's trying to keep its balance.

I hope mechanics are emplaced to prevent unnatural character behavior for the sake of mechanical advantage.

As far as concealment via terrain and objects, since flora is procedurally generated this possess a problem. The only solution I see is to apply the bonus for concealment to all terrain where flora can be generated, not necessarily where each individual bush, shrub, or plant populates.

You and I both. I know many other may find it trivial but I'd include bunny hopping as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Rafkin wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Pax Rafkin wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Pax Areks wrote:

"Stealth- You are skilled at avoiding detection, allowing you to slip past foes or strike from an unseen position. This skill covers hiding and moving silently.

Check
Your stealth check is opposed by the perception check of anyone who might notice you. Creatures that fail to beat your stealth check are not aware of you and treat you as if you had concealment."

On the tabletop, striking while unseen, or striking from concealment does not grant any attack or damage bonuses. It does not put the Flat-Footed condition on a target. You do not lose your Dexterity bonus to AC if you are attacked by an unseen opponent.

At best, it means that your opponent shouldn't be able to hit you before you hit them. It doesn't trigger the Sneak Attack feature.

RyanD

That just can't be true. As it's a surprise round your target has not yet acted and therefor is flatfooted
I do agree that it doesn't really make any sense, but Ryan is right about the TT mechanic I believe. How relevant that is to the video game's mechanic remains questionable...

It's not correct at all.

Invisible

Invisible creatures are visually undetectable. An invisible creature gains a +2 bonus on attack rolls against sighted opponents, and ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any). See the invisibility special ability.

They are, but Stealth does not confer the invisible state. Invisibility is gained only via the spell or other magical means. Stealth gives a bonus to concealment.

That said: "A creature can generally notice the presence of an active invisible creature within 30 feet with a DC 20 Spot check. The observer gains a hunch that “something’s there” but can’t see it or target it accurately with an attack."

This not an opposed roll. This is not Stealth vs Perception. It's a flat out round to round check the target gets to make. Sure, it may not be enough to attack the Rogue, but it should allow them the opportunity to flee the situation.

So while not visually, a character does have other means that would warn them something is amiss.

Goblin Squad Member

Pax Areks wrote:
V'rel Vusoryn wrote:

Invisible Rogues should only happen if the Rogue has access to the Invisibility spell. Even if they are invisible, there should still be a chance they make audible noise and for sure other visual clues should exist (i.e., if they pass through water they still make waves, if on soft ground they leave footprints, etc. )

To give Rogues Stealth and apply the states of Invisible, Silence, Incorporeal and Ethereal all into it does not, to me, seem desirable or even close to being true/near the actual PF game principles.

Thank you for supporting my position. I am in complete agreeance with you. The fact of the matter is that there is no "chance" involved. Once I break ranged distance at best, whoever I am approaching is aware of my character's presence, just in a different state.

To give Rogues Stealth and apply concealment both mechanically and visually would be more accurate, and what I am lobbying for.

I completely agree. Stealth alone should never allow one to sneak up on another when there is nothing of mass blocking vision between the two. Now, if the Rogue had the spells Invisibility and Silence cast on them as well as was either Ethereal or Incorporeal via some magic item or spell, then yes they should be able to break ranged distance unseen/unheard/undetected up to 5ft from their target.

A Rogue just having maxed stealth alone should not unless his target remains facing away from him/her the entire time and the Rogue wins the Stealth vs Perception roll each turn until they are at 5ft (5ft being normal melee attack range). If ever there is a point in which a straight line can be drawn by the server from the stalked character's eyes to a point on the body of the Rogue Stealth should be dropped, Rogue detected.

So even if a character sits and spins a savvy Rogue would still be able to make the 5ft mark using cover (buildings, large boxes/crates, trees, boulders, hills, statues, etc) to block line of sight as they approach.

1 to 50 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.